Homily for October 12, 2008 28th Sunday of the Year

If we had time to do Bible study this morning, this would be a wonderful text to demonstrate the theories of modern Biblical interpretation. At the base of the Gospel today is a simple story. Somebody throws a party, and when it's time for the party, the guests can't come. So he goes out and he invites anybody he meets to the party.
I had a friend years ago who used to throw parties at the last minute, and he'd call his friends and nobody could come. So he'd go down to the neighborhood tavern and say, "I'm having a party at my house. Come." And I think that fits the Gospel.
Mark and Luke tell this story and it's a simple story. Matthew tells it, and it's a king having a banquet for his son. People start murdering each other, and the banquet is interrupted so the king can conduct a war and burn cities and towns. Then Matthew adds the story about the wedding garment. Mark and Luke don't have that.
So if we were doing Bible study, I'd say why did Matthew change the story, and how does it fit the point that Matthew is trying to make? What do you think he meant when he added the story about the wedding garment? We're not going to go there today.
But I asked you at the beginning to pay attention to anything that bothered you. Did anything bother you about the Gospel today?
You felt sorry for the guy without the wedding garment. How many of you felt sorry for that guy? How unrealistic can you get? You go out to the streets and alleys, and at the last minute you say, "Come to the wedding banquet" and then you get mad because they're not dressed for a wedding. Why do you think Matthew felt the need to add that to his story?
I want to give you a hint by referring to our parish mission statement: Holy Cross is people offering worship that's connected to people's lives and says everyone is worthy to be here. Do you buy that? "Everyone is worthy to be here." We don't care where you came from. We don't care what your past is. There's no behavior criteria to determine whether or not you're welcome.
Now, is there a potential problem with that? Yeah, what's the problem with it?
Okay. That's not where I was going to go, but it's there and it's realistic. Dwight said we don't always welcome people for our, into all of our customs. You may be welcome to come, but you might not be welcome to come to communion.
A friend of mine has a reference in which he talks about "collie dog churches," and in some respects Holy Cross could be a collie dog church. Now what he means by a collie dog church is one that is warm and friendly like collie dogs, but barks at strangers. Are there ways that we might bark at strangers?
Anyway, anybody see another problem with saying everybody is worthy to be here?
You mean I might say something?
Okay. Something might be said as a congregation that everyone might not truly believe. It's not been unheard of, that people have problems with some things that are said in church.
We have to learn to welcome different opinions and not just tolerate them. Yes, I mean --
Yeah, it's easy to say we do it, but not to really do it. Or it's easy -- yes?
[Inaudible.]
Okay. Good, can I, can you say that?
Just to think of it as a going forward thing. Everyone's welcome to come, but then, what is your personal interior intention once you get here, and what do you do with it going forward?
Thank you. You know, I had my homily all ready and you all didn't go where -- but as John said, we have to welcome diversity of opinions.
Where can I say where I was going to go? Where I was going to go with it is sometimes people have the problem, okay, so we're -- and Jackie came close to it -- we're all welcome, but does that mean nothing is going to be asked of us?
Yeah, let me come closer to you, would you mind? Okay.
What I said was, what about welcoming another religion, as well as another culture? I may be looking for another type of religion. I may be accustomed to one religion, and I might decide I want to change it. So here I am.
Thank you. So what about welcoming another religion, as well as another culture? And what about, finally -- by the way, the reason Matthew added that wedding garment story, at least the Scripture scholars say, is that he wanted make it clear: Okay, you're all here, but let's not pat ourselves on the back and say God isn't going to ask anything of us, or God isn't going to ask us to seek to do God's will, or God isn't going to ask us to seek to change our life or be converted.
So that's why Matthew added that, and I think your answers all gave examples of what it means to be converted. It may not be where I think we need to go to be converted, but collectively God calls all of us.
I want to close with my letter in the bulletin that was prompted by a discussion with somebody last week. We were talking about a member of our parish, who will remain unnamed, who, in this person's mind, exemplified living the Gospel in the sense of justice and charity. And the question this person was asking me is, why do we place so much emphasis on believing the right things and saying the right things and not doing the right things.
Well, sometimes I think that's a false division between believing and acting, that the ideal is for right living to lead us into right believing and right acting, and for all of them to go together. But that conversation prompted me to throw out this question, and I'm going to close with it.
In the prophet Micah, chapter six verse eight, God is entering into judgment with his people, and the people answer, "Well, how shall we come before the Lord?"
And God answers, "You have been told, O mortal, what is required, that you do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God."
Remember a couple years ago when we were arguing about prayer in the legislature? I suggested to somebody, what if every day they just read Micah 6:8, "You've been told what is required, do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God." What if they read that every day for 10 years, and after they got that down, moved on to more sophisticated forms of prayer?
What if, when we baptize babies, instead of just saying, “Do you believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit,” what if I were to ask you, “Do you promise to raise your child to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with God?"
And what if the creed we said was that? I think I might try that today, not that I am trying to substitute that for another creed, but I think it's a good question, don't you, that we might imagine as we come into God's presence God saying, "I've told you what I want. Do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with me."

Homilies for September 28 and October 5, 2008

These homilies are linked together because they address the question of Pro Life Issues, politics and spirituality of these issues.
Homily September 28, 2008
26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle A

I want to ask your indulgence today. I'm going to risk venturing into the murky world of politics. I had planned it because the Gospel today raised questions for me.
If you look at our landscape today, who are the scribes and pharisees? Who are the tax collectors? Who are the people saying, "I won't do it," but are doing it, and who are the people saying, "I will," and who won't? Are there any people saying, "I will," who are?
I'm going to begin with this reference. Most of you know 37 years ago I was in the state legislature as a representative. All of my surprises were positive. I was more impressed by the quality of the people there than I expected to be. They were all ordinary people. I agreed with some; I disagreed with others. I also learned how very complex legislation can be.
There was one man whom I developed a great deal of respect for. This man was Catholic, and he was someone I could go to say, "I don't know what I think about this piece of legislation. Could you help me figure out where I am?" I could tell him what I thought and what I felt. There were times when he would say, "You know, if that's where you are, you should vote against this, and this is why." And he would give me the reasons why I should be against it. Then he would say, "Now, mind you, I'm for it, and I really wish you could be for it. And if you want to know why I'm for it, I'll tell you. But if you're where you are, you should be against it."
That was somebody I could trust, and that person had more power to persuade me than anybody there. The problem with using persuasion to get people to think a particular way is that, unless they trust you, your efforts at persuasion will fall on deaf ears, The more you try to persuade them, the more they are going to mistrust you.
People who want to tell you what to think and are certain that their view is God's view, are a dime a dozen, You can find them on either side of any issue. People who will listen to you and help you discover where you are, are rare indeed, I think they're priceless.
In our planning efforts for Holy Cross, as we try to define for ourselves what kind of parish we want to be, a theme that comes constantly is, we do not want to be a place where you come to get answers. We want to be a place where you can come and feel comfortable with your questions, and feel the space to explore those questions.
I want to give you two scenarios today. A Catholic for whom abortion is very important follows perfectly logical reasoning and decides that he or she cannot vote for a prochoice candidate. Is that a valid Catholic position? Yes.
Let me give you another scenario, and by the way, this really happened. A Republican who is an ex Reagan White House official, who is very well known and very active in pro life circles, decides that Obama is the candidate of choice for Catholics and endorses him. He is publicly condemned and refused communion by his pastor. Does that seem like a likely scenario?
Now, let me tell you what happened. The Archbishop, who is a Cardinal, ordered that priest to apologize, and he did. His apology was accepted in spite of the fact that being publicly condemned and being denied communion was a very hurtful thing. That I got from an article in the New York Times, which is in the back of church by the coffee pot. I mention that article specifically because I know you won't read it in the Criterion. You will read the first scenario in the Criterion, but you will not read the second, and they are both Catholic positions.
Now, if I have to vote tomorrow, I know exactly how I'll vote. If I have to vote in November, well, there's still time to be persuaded, but only by people whom I trust. I know, and I want to acknowledge there are many Catholics on the right and on the left who do not trust the bishops. I'm not making a judgment there, I'm just making an observation. If you read the conservative blogs, you will find that they are merciless in their condemnation of bishops who don't do what they want, and if you read the liberal blogs, they are less critical, but critical, of bishops who don't do what they want.
Now, I know where I am, but I'm not here to persuade you that that's where you should be. I really want for all of us the freedom to find the space to be where you are. I would love to have a discussion about the elections, but my ground rule would be that nobody could come to persuade anybody else how to vote. People could come only to share what they feel and to learn how other people feel, and it would not be designed to come to any conclusion.
Would that be worthwhile? Would it be difficult?
[Laughter.]
That's why we've never done it.
[More laughter.]
I'd like to try, though. I think the answer to these questions lies at the level of spirituality, not the level of theology or politics. I want to ask you, how would pro choice and pro life people come together and pray together about these issues? Would it be possible?
Somebody gave me a list of prayers from the pro life office to use for our prayers of the people, but as you know, that's a problem because we don't use canned prayers of the faithful. I've received, and the liturgy committee has, too, two very valid criticisms of the way we do prayers of the faithful.
The first is that you can't always hear what is being said. You've all noticed that, haven't you? We don't know how to fix that without not letting people speak, or without forcing them to come to a microphone. So we have talked about that and decided that, well, God hears, and the people have the freedom, and it doesn't really matter if we all hear.
The second is  when I share with priests throughout the diocese that that's the way we do it, they think, "Aren't you afraid that they will get controversial?"
And I say, "Well, yeah, but it seldom happens."
The other criticism, and it's very valid, is that the prayers of the faithful are supposed to have a hierarchy. By the way, in the liturgy the official person designated to do them is the deacon, who is supposed to be a middle person, to speak the needs of the people. But the prayers of the faithful are supposed to be first of all for the universal church, for the world, for its needs, for our local community, and then for our individual needs. The way we do it is often unbalanced, and it's very much the needs of the individuals. We don't hear prayers for the universal church. I think that's true, and we're still struggling with that.
I'll tell you how I intend to pray in the prayers of the faithful today for life issues, and that is, I intend to ask you to think about the unborn child, about the pregnant mother who has to make choices, about politicians, about church people, and hold them all in your mind and heart and say, "Lord, have mercy on us." Does that seem like a valid prayer?
I know that there are many who might have desires and passion to persuade people, and that's okay, too. The church in its teaching on life issues is very broad. It encompasses everything. It is so broad that liberals are embarrassed by its inclusion of abortion and conservatives are embarrassed by its inclusion of other life issues, and nobody adequately embodies the whole teaching.
If outside of this forum people want to persuade people one way or the other, that's good. But as I say, the number of people who want to do that are a dime a dozen on either side of the issue. I think the people who will listen to what's really important to you and help you decide where you are, are rare indeed.
Homily October 5, 2008
27th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle A

We're in a series of three parables that Jesus tells in Matthew's Gospel. Last week, you remember, there was the story of the two sons, today the parable of the vineyard, and next Sunday there will be still another parable. All of them are directed to the leaders of the people, and all of them imply condemnation.
Last Sunday I asked the question, if we applied that to today, who would those bad tenants be and who would it be directed to? I'm not going to suggest an answer but instead just leave you with the question.
In Catholic Churches through out country we celebrate Respect Life Sunday today. So I want to speak about that topic. I ask you as I speak about it to set aside politics, set aside legal questions, and approach it purely from the level of spirituality. Last week I suggested that questions were okay, and I want today to just leave you with some questions.
One of the things we are learning today -- the analogy I want to use is our concerns about the environment --  as we look at environmental questions is how deep are the connections between things. You know, we've learned from the environment that often we act without understanding those connections. What happens when we act without understanding the connections? We create chaos.
If you look at the questions of global warming, the questions of pollution, questions of sustainable development, often we don't understand how deeply interconnected things are, and so we act out of ignorance. Sometimes we think we are doing something good, something progressive, and the results are disaster for our world. Nature can be very unforgiving of our failure to understand the connections between things.
Look at our economic crisis. Nobody set out to create the crisis we have today. People did things that they thought were good things, but look at the mess they've gotten us in.
Nobody set out to harm our environment. We set out to do good things. But we have a lifestyle that has created a great deal of harm, so much harm that we worry whether an environment that will sustain human life survive?
I hear people praying for the earth. The earth will survive. The question is whether we will, and whether an environment that supports our life will.
Do you know where I'm going, and do you see those connections? Well, I want to ask you two questions today.
Do you think it is possible that there can be connections in the moral environment that we don't see or don't understand? Would the principles of ecology and balance apply when it comes to morality, particularly when it comes to respect for human life? Can we ignore one part of human life without creating problems for us in every spectrum of human life?
I know many people today have problems with some of the stands and positions our church takes on issues. Many people don't, but many do, and by the way these issues around respect life, how long have they been here? Remember Roe v. Wade was 1973. I've been going to meetings on these issues for 35 years. Have they gone away? They're as contentious today, even more contentious today, than they were 35 years ago. That in itself should tell us something. There are some very deep questions here that are not going to go away and that won't be dismissed lightly.
In my letter in the bulletin today (see below) I quote Pope Benedict XVI in his talk to the youth of the world this past summer at the Australian youth conference. In his statement to the youth at the world conference, he said all of these concerns are very important  and I'll repeat them  our concern for violence, justice and peace, sustainable development, and the environment are very important, but they cannot be maintained apart from a deep reflection on the dignity of every human life from the moment of conception to natural death.
My question is this: Is he just being reactionary and old fashioned and out of date, or is he speaking an inconvenient truth that our society would prefer to ignore? I'll leave you to answer that question for yourself.
As I answer it for myself, the exclusion of an unborn child from our concern for human life needs more justification than its inclusion. But more than anything, I think we need a level of deep spirituality that includes all living things and all of life. And let's pray, in whatever way seems appropriate to you, that that take place.
Bulletin Letter:
Today is Respect Life Sunday in Catholic churches throughout the United States. I want to follow last week’s reflection with my own Respect Life reflection that comes from a different place. I’d like to make an analogy to what we are learning from concern for the environment.
No one ever set out to harm our environment. People did things in good faith because our lifestyle had gotten us used to doing it that way. They didn’t see the harm. People tried to solve a problem using technology and created more problems. We have learned that there are deep connections between things that we don’t always see or understand. There are connections between our behavior and environmental disaster that we didn’t see or understand. Nature can be very unforgiving of our ignorance of those connections.
No one set out to create our current economic crisis. We acted in good faith. But there were connections between our behavior and economic disaster that we didn’t see or understand. Nature can be very unforgiving of our ignorance of connections.
Could this be true of our moral choices as well? Take the quote from Pope Benedict XVI to youth when he was in Australia:
God's creation is one and it is good. The concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity. They cannot, however, be understood apart from a profound reflection upon the innate dignity of every human life from conception to natural death: a dignity conferred by God himself and thus inviolable.
Those who are only “anti abortion” won’t like that statement. Those who would like to ignore abortion won’t like it. Is he being reactionary and non progressive? Or is he affirming an inconvenient truth of the interconnectedness of moral issues?
Sometimes our Church seems too conservative, too unenlightened or out of touch with what is happening in the world. I have no proof but just want to ask, “What if?” What if it is being forward thinking and prophetic? What if it is acting from a deep intuition of the connection between moral issues? I have no proof. It could be that the Church is just being old fashioned and reactionary. It has been that at times. But, on the other hand, What if?